I do not wish to impede the progress of the Bill, but I would be glad if the Minister would give us an approximate idea, either now or on the concluding Stages of the Bill, as to the amount of money for which the State has made itself responsible in connection with these trade loans. It may not be fair to ask for that statement now but at a later stage the Minister might give us that information.
Trade Loans (Guarantee) (Amendment) Bill, 1930—Second Stage.
Question proposed—"That the Bill be read a second time."
The amount is between £320,000 and £330,000.
Is that the amount actually advanced to the concerns assisted, or is it the amount for which the State has made itself responsible?
It is the amount guaranteed. I do not make advances.
As far as I understand certain sums have been advanced. Whether that figure includes all the amounts that have been raised is a question I would like the Minister to make clear.
Before the Minister concludes I would like to know is there really any necessity for the Bill? Are the facilities provided under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act being availed of to any extent? As far as one can make out from inquiries of a private nature, it would seem as if the Act has been more or less of a failure and that private enterprise does not avail of the facilities for getting advances under the Act, either because of unreasonable rates or for some other reason. If the Act is not being availed of it seems unnecessary to have this Bill at all. I would like to know from the Minister, apart from the actual amount allotted, whether there are many applications under consideration, or whether he thinks there is any likelihood of the facilities being availed of to any considerable extent.
I do not quite understand the question put by Senator Hooper, but I will endeavour to answer him in this way. Loans to the extent of £320,000 or £330,000 have been guaranteed by the State. If the information which the Senator is seeking is as to how much money the State will have to pay, in case those who are primarily responsible for the loans fail to discharge their liabilities, that I cannot answer at the moment. If the Senator means that concerns helped through the agency of the Trade Loans Act may fail and that he wishes to know what the State will lose, I can only give him an approximate idea. It would amount to this: that if no money be realised from the sale of the assets the State will have to meet a bill amounting to one-third of the entire money guaranteed. That is on the basis that no money will be received from the realisable assets of concerns guaranteed under the Act. That is the only information I can give the Senator.
I am very much obliged to the Minister, but the information on which I based my question was obtained in this way. Last year the Minister told the Dáil, if I recollect aright, that advances had been made to an amount, I think, of £400,000. Only a month or two before then a loan of one-quarter of a million was sought from the public and, I presume, secured from the public on a Government guarantee. When the Minister made that statement he said that very little was being done under the Act, and, as far as I know, very little has been done under the Act. Why was it necessary then to raise that quarter of a million?
What quarter of a million?
There was a quarter of a million raised by the Industrial Trust Company on Government security. Am I right in that?
That is a different thing altogether.
Is the State not responsible for that money?
Not for it all.
But it is involved there.
The State has lodged certain funds to the credit of the Industrial Trust Corporation— not one quarter of a million. That is entirely distinct from the Trade Loans Guarantee Act.
But surely that money was in respect of trade loans?
No. The Investment Corporation is, in fact, intended to supply certain trade loans, but it is quite distinct from the question of the Trade Loans Act. The two things are entirely apart, and the directors are two different bodies. There is no binding obligation on the Corporation to advance money upon a trade loans guarantee more than upon anything else. I do not think I have committed myself to the statement that £400,000 had been advanced from the commencement of the Act. The figure is round about £320,000 or £330,000. There has been very little received in the way of repayments since. There has been one successful case. Senator O'Farrell's question relates to a different matter. It is very hard at any time of the year to say what the prospects are in regard to applications for loans for the ensuing twelve months. Numerous inquiries come forward. The number of inquiries that afterwards lead to anything is a very small percentage of the total inquiries received. At the moment I can think of only about four cases which are likely to come forward. One was brought forward a couple of years ago under very good auspices, but it disappeared for reasons entirely unconnected with the State. I understand that this is to be brought forward again. It is undoubtedly a very good proposal, and will lead to a considerable amount of benefit to the State.
There is one other application about which it is very hard to make any statement at the moment, because technically it should be ruled out as not being within the four corners of the Act. If it were brought within the four corners of the Act it would involve a commitment of more than the remnant of the million I have at my disposal. It is a proposal of a very big character, which it is quite likely will be dealt with in another way. Outside these two applications there are two others which I can think of, but even for these four we think it is necessary to keep the Act still in being. The applications received result in a considerable number of inquiries being instituted, but very often they come to nothing in the end.
I would like to ask who is chairman of this board?
What board?
The board about which the Minister is talking.
The board about which Senator Hooper was talking?
The board which makes the trade loans.
There is an Advisory Committee. If the Senator means the Advisory Committee, which is not the board to which Senator Hooper referred, the Chairman is Mr. Harold Pim.
I will have to look into the figures about the £400,000 again. Perhaps I might raise the matter on the next stage.
Arising out of the statement made by the Minister that there would be losses, can he give any indication of the amount or if they are really considerable?
I cannot add anything to what I said. If we take two or three firms, if each of them fails— and that is hardly possible—and if they have no realisable assets, then we would get nothing from the sale, and would lose about £100,000. It is not at all likely that there will be nothing as a result of the sale, and consequently I think that one could possibly divide that amount in two.
How much would be in jeopardy?
About £100,000, but I do not think it likely that it will be that amount. I think it would be more like £50,000.
The Minister alluded to a sum of £320,000 or £330,000. Would he tell us if the State commitment is only the interest on that sum and that it has nothing to do with the capital?
We guaranteed principal and interest.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for June 19th.